So just because it happens to animals, it is natural? Animals have defects too, and they should not be supported or encouraged as normal. And to those who keep pointing out infertile people or people who choose not to have kids, I clearly said "capable of" (meaning, they could) and "barring defects" (covering infertility and whatnot.) I love my dog too, but I doubt we could get married if for some reason I tried. Some people might love their siblings, but they are not allowed to get married either. Standards....

Well you have a limited grasp on the complex social structures of human relationships. I know plenty of gay couples who have children. The purpose of marriage in our society is not about children though. The purpose of marriage is a legal binding of two humans which grants the rights of inheritance, preparation of how ones partner can be in-turned after death, hospital visitation, the ability to legally sign for your spouse, tax laws - lower taxes, ability to prepare joint taxes, and about 1900 other laws and protections. This is not an argument about reproduction. As that the LGBT community figured out long ago how to do that.

There are economic perks of being married as husband & wife.
If the supreme court rule in favor of gay marriages, will the states be able to sidestep it and ignore offering the perks?
It is to my understanding that those perks are federal law and at worst from my PoV, individual states will be able to sidestep the labeling, ceremony whatever but still be enforced to offer the perks to same sex marriages?

I look at it as, males and females were clearly designed to mate. Whether you subscribe to God or nature, it is a fact. If every single person in the world was straight, there would be no issue. If every single person in the world was gay, barring out artificial insemination (which is not natural) our species would die out within a couple generations. I need no further reason to see it as unnatural or wrong. Am I suggesting we should lock people up who are gay, no, but I see no reason for society to support it. But of course, I will never understand the liberal ideals of tolerance of everything over standards.

This is a sad situation for you, because you really do not understand the science, legal, or the social implications. Only a person who subscribes to one of 3 primary religious beliefs would believe as you do. Science has proven that Homosexuality is in fact very natural and has it's place in evolution. One of the great ape species which is closely related to humans is almost 100% bi-sexual (Bonobo - Pan paniscus) in fact some think they are closer to humans than Chimps.

Sexual behavior in humans is rarely for the purpose of creating children, humans use it as a means of recreation, social status, and signs of affection, only long term couples will plan to have children. Which means most children were not created by planning but do to the other reasons.

I'll use Alexander the Great as an example, he had a male lover his entire life. However, he was under a lot of pressure from the Greek state to produce an heir, the Greeks and the Persians kept introducing him to women of important families. What did he do? he found the least important attractive woman in his empire, she was a woman from Afghanistan and the daughter of one of the local tribe chiefs, named Roxanne. He had a child with her, and then left her in Baghdad as he went to India, with his lover. What does this say? It means Gay men in the time of Alexander figured out how to reproduce and to by-pass your argument, it also means that gay men will take your women away from you if you refuse their rights.

Also, if we're speaking in hypotheticals, it stands to reason that even if the entire species was homosexual, it would be understood that reproduction is important to continue the species. Sex and love are not intrinsically-linked acts; one would guess that an entirely-gay species would either evolve and adapt into a single-gendered race that can reproduce either asexually or with itself with no need for physical and genetic gender distinctions, or the culture would evolve first and artificial insemination would become the norm.

Among primates, perhaps the most pervasive, and most enthusiastic expression of homosexuality is found amongst bonobos (a species fairly closely related to common chimpanzees). Bonobos live in highly cohesive communities. Social bonds are maintained by a very high level of sexual interaction that include all possible pairings and many different positions. Males and females are bonded together and copulate frequently, sometimes face-to-face. But females frequently rub their genitals together. Males also engage in frequent sexual interactions. Bonobos are perhaps the most bisexual species of vertebrate on the planet. The bonobos do it all. For instance, males engage in highly unusual "xxxxx fencing" that involves rubbing their erect xxxxxx together.

Frequent sexual interaction among bonobos defuse aggression and strengthen social bonds. Perhaps for that reason, bonobos are less aggressive towards each other than common chimpanzees are. Bonobo antics provide a fairly compelling argument against anyone who holds that homosexual behavior is "against nature."

Of course, bonobos are not exclusively homosexual, like some penguins, or humans. In the last post, I argued that exclusive homosexuality in humans can be partly explained in terms of genes on the X-chromosome that increase reproductive success for females who carry them. The penguins remain something of a puzzle.

Bisexuality is much more easily explained because bisexuals can form close bonds with either gender, that could provide practical advantages, as hypothesized for bonobos. Anthropologists describe bisexual conduct as common in many societies around the world and conclude that close same-sex relationships provide advantages in education, trade, and the making of political alliances (2).

And this right here is why I detest arguing against liberals and rarely bother. ANYTHING you say involving a standard is twisted into discrimination. Then if you point out how they are tolerant of every value except conservative values, back to the discrimination comments. I will leave you all to it. The way the country is headed, I have no doubt all states will be forced to accept gay marriages whether they want to or not anyway.

America had it's first gay president in the 1800's, back then there was no discrimination against you if you where gay. Only if you flaunted being gay in public. Lets just say, the conservative value is what happens behind closed doors is not my business. However, everyone in Washington DC knew that that President and his Male house partner where a married couple.

The only discrimination they faced was they could not openly admit who and what they were. Even though everyone knew it. Also it was quiet common for homosexuals to get married in the US back then although usually to do it one would pose as a woman/man for the ceremony. and sometimes after the wedding the one who posed opposite gender would publicly express that gender. Most didn't say anything because what they did at home was their business.

There are economic perks of being married as husband & wife.
If the supreme court rule in favor of gay marriages, will the states be able to sidestep it and ignore offering the perks?
It is to my understanding that those perks are federal law and at worst from my PoV, individual states will be able to sidestep the labeling, ceremony whatever but still be enforced to offer the perks to same sex marriages?

It depends on how SCOTUS makes it ruling, though I'd expect that they'd hold DOMA to be in violation of the Equal Protection clause. Then providing the same perks by another name without offering the same to same sex couples would also be unconstitutional, probably.

I think marriage as a public institution should be abolished. Consenting adults should have full freedom to define and celebrate their relationships with each other as they see fit.

Legalizing gay marriage, as opposed to abolishing marriage as a public institution would just legitimize the government's 'right' to control human relationships by convincing them to 'extend' that right elsewhere. So it's hardly a victory for freedom.

EDIT: Don't get me wrong, I still believe, that until society learns to embrace freedom, public institutions should be extended equally to all people.

This is not an argument about reproduction. As that the LGBT community figured out long ago how to do that.

If you have to figure out how to reproduce because it doesn't come naturally, then something is wrong there.

The problem with most people is that they look at humans as being nothing more than animals because they believe in the faulty idea of evolution. There are males and females so to have children and populate. You don't see gays having babies out of there butts do you? With the huge gay movement and push that has grown so rapidly all of the sudden, soon being a 'straight' couple as male and female will be looked at as unnatural. I'm sorry you compare yourself and lower your worth to being nothing more than an animal so to justify your unnatural practice of homosexuality.

It depends on how SCOTUS makes it ruling, though I'd expect that they'd hold DOMA to be in violation of the Equal Protection clause. Then providing the same perks by another name without offering the same to same sex couples would also be unconstitutional, probably.

So the supreme court can basicly be idiots not actually ruling decisively but leaving it up to the states?

Not at all, I'm Bi but I have a long term hetero roommate. If anything should happen to me, I might want to sign everything over to this person to handle. It is not because we are a couple, although some have thought we are.

I'm fine with gay couples being couples, I just dislike the attempt to misuse a word's definition. If for the entirety of the word "marriage" it was defined as "A union between two people" and not "A union between a man and woman" then I would be fine with them "getting married."

Sure, there's always the argument of "Just change the definition" etc, but I don't feel you should be forced to change the definition of a word just because a small group of people demand it. I'm fine with them having the same tax breaks and all that, but don't change the definition of a word.

What exactly is wrong with just calling it marriage? Since that is exactly what they would be if they enjoyed the same rights and privs as a married couple...

Maybe you need to assess why hold this stance at all? The most practical approach here is just going with calling it what it is....marriage. If you want to go the opposite way you need to specify why exactly, what purpose it would serve and whether it would be worth the trouble.

So wait... some states STILL don't allow this? Surely should be a basic human right? To be allowed to be a civil partner with whomever the hell you want provided it is not incestuous and is consenting.

The issue is a Civil Union in the US legal system conveys no rights. Only a Legal Marriage, which in most countries is actually a Civil Union, conveys any rights. So the issue really is about the 2000 or so rights a Married couple have in the US.

From my understanding of the bible marriage if the union of a man and a woman. And by union what the bible mean is sex plain and simple.

Marriage in the bible has nothing to do with the type of marriage that gay people want....well besides the word marriage. What gay people is the same type of legally binding contract that hetro people have and what is the problem with that? If people and understand that they are not one and the same maybe people can move on.

But then again I don't see the whole problem with people being gay. It is what it is and if it was so bad I am sure when Moses went up on Mount Sinai he would have came down with eleven commandments instead of just ten.

i almost stopped reading at the first line, lol. glad i didnt. was not what i was expecting to hear from a professed southern baptist

With the huge gay movement and push that has grown so rapidly all of the sudden, soon being a 'straight' couple as male and female will be looked at as unnatural.

Yes cos that was exactly what happened with the civil rights movement?
Nowdays all whites are unatural, amarite?
All liberties not aimed soley at white, hetrosexual persons will lead to unatural outcomes? o_o

So the supreme court can basicly be idiots not actually ruling decisively but leaving it up to the states?

Potentially, yes. They could say that marriage is up to the states to define, as it has been traditionally. This way they can limit their ruling to simply that the Federal government overstepped with DOMA by overriding a legally recognised (by a state) marriage. Doing so does leave it up to the states, but at least even in that case, those states that have legalised marriage equality will be able to enjoy the full rights and benefits on a federal level too.

I doubt it though, the Second Circuit already made a ruling on this as a constitutional issue, would be dumb for the court to back away from that.

---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 05:50 PM ----------

Originally Posted by rawdude

The problem with most people is that they look at humans as being nothing more than animals because they believe in the faulty idea of evolution.

There's nothing faulty about evolution. But I'm willing to bet your understanding of evolution is deeply flawed. And we are animals by definition.

With the huge gay movement and push that has grown so rapidly all of the sudden, soon being a 'straight' couple as male and female will be looked at as unnatural.